ACTION: 2001-11-16#7

• From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:51:48 +0000
• To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020213234735.0233a570@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>

ACTION: 2001-11-16#7 Pat following email discussion of 
rdfms-boolean-valued-properties, prepare new statement of this resolution 
to bring back for approval.
We discussed boolean valued properties on 16/11 telecon and agreed in 
principal that this could be handled using rdf:type, but some wordsmithing
on the resolution was needed.
Pat and I (well Pat did it really, I'm just trying to steal some of the 
credit) have worked up the following resolution to close this issue:
   o. The WG notes that since a boolean-valued property can be
      identified with a     class, rdf:type can be used to
      represent boolean valued properties. Thus:
     <foo> <chocolateLover> <true> .
can be represented by
     <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateLover> .
   o. While this provides no way to express a negative (negated)
      boolean value, the addition of such an ability would extend
      RDF beyond its anticipated semantic basis, requiring
      unacceptably far-reaching changes.
   o. The WG resolves to close this issue on the grounds that the
      current facilities are adequate for all purposes that do not
      over-extend RDF.
Brian

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 03:19:13 UTC